-23 votes

Rand Paul blames Putin for Airline Disaster.

From libertycrier.com


Rand Paul has determined that Russia’s Putin is to blame for the surface to air missile attack and destruction of a commercial airliner flying in Ukrainian airspace and carrying 258 passengers. Rand is now calling for sanctions against Russia in retaliation for the attack, claiming that sanctions are the only thing that will “work”.

As the interview continues Randolph discusses the Israeli Gaza situation, violence in Chicago, and more.

Read more at http://libertycrier.com/rand-paul-blames-putin-commercial-ai...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand is clearly NOT investigating the East Ukrainian situation

not EVEN close.

Does he not know about the US-instigated COUP in Kiev?
Does he not know about our dozens of CIA/FBI agents over there?
Does he not know CIA Director Brennan was in Kiev the day before the ODESSA MASSACRE?

Why won't he admit we are in complicit and every bit behind the regime in Kiev?

Why won't he admit we had US MERCENARIES in Ukraine killing individuals with snipers with impunity?

Why can't he see East Ukraine is being slaughtered, and as many people have been killed as the ones in the downed airline MH17?

Yes, because Putin and the

Yes, because Putin and the secessionists have just sooooo much to gain from downing a commercial airliner. Rand is such an utter tool

Lost my vote.

Rand has officially lost my vote! Good grief, Ron was the best because he didn't pander for votes.

Fox News lied

Rand Paul never claimed anyone did this intentionally. He spoke vaguely about a unified world opinion on the matter that shooting down commercial airliners is horrible. And said he thinks the incident altogether "isolates" Putin.

I'm seeing a lot of headlines that purport to show Rand abandoning everything liberty movement, then you read or watch, and it's not bad at all. Simple safe speaking in vague terms.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

What is wrong with what Paul said? Maybe you should listen again

Only the first half of the clip concerns the airline downing.

Most of the statements were made by the TV host, not Paul. During the interview I only heard Paul say:

(1) The event isolates Putin
(2) While the whole world needs to speak with one voice
(2) primarily Europe needs to be more involved (it is their domain).
(3) Rebuke is an apppriate response
(4) if Europe wants to deal with it, they need to consider rebuke and trade sanctions.

I cleared the wax out of my ears and listened again. Same message. Maybe those of you who are so worked up about Paul's reasoned and limited response should clean their own ears?

What did Rand Paul which is so upsetting or or hypocritical or "political"?

What did Paul say which you disagree with? What SHOULD he have said?

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Proof in the pudding

Will come out. Ron Paul said it would take several several days to figure out what happen .When the MSM left and right lean together. Watch out. So I guess I will go on Daily Paul Amazon and order a New Marc Cohn CD. As for Rand that old song by Marc Cohn. Lost you in the Canyon. Is playing now in my head.

Money talks and dogs bark

Two Ukrainian jets have

Two Ukrainian jets have reportedly been shot down:


Texas Liberty Talk Radio http://www.ragingelephantsradio.com/

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

Makes me wonder too.

Even if Rand is right, I'm sorry he said anything after Ron Paul had already spoken out.

More diverse party? How?

Oh, I see. By saying all the regular old neo-con things. OK, got it.

Rand is spewing Propaganda


"New comments from high-level U.S. officials and portions of declassified intelligence information released on Tuesday indicates—contrary to earlier comments by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry—that Russia had no direct involvement in last week's Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 disaster in which 298 passengers were killed after being shot down over eastern Ukraine."

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/23/airliner-shot-do...


So Rand Paul is no different here than John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, OBomba, etc..

He is ignoring the real facts, and just spewing false and reckless U.S. Empire Propaganda -- even as his own father knows the real difference the whole time.

Cannot trust this guy......No Integrity going on

Real facts?

Quoted from Commondreams, a progressive news outlet; as quoted from The Russian Times?
Comments from unknown sources.
Portions of intelligence info.
Russia had no direct involvement.

Rand Paul is no different than Lindsay Graham???
I strongly disagree.

Liberty. Get some.

America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Got Some...

The original story came from the LA Times (based on an admission from U.S. Intel ... hello?), so don't pretend this was just some Russian spin. It wasn't.

Look Here: http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-intelligen...


Because all US intel

is 100%.


U.S. Intel is often wrong, especially if it is something then immediately seized upon and parroted by The White House & Congressional "leaders".

But whenever you see U.S. Intel back peddling into a corner into a state of admission that refutes the Neocon "conventional wisdom", then you can bet it is a case of the truth finally coming out.

There are many "desk job" Intel analysts that really do try to do the right thing (Joe Wilson, Valarie Plame, etc.). It is the unseen paramilitary web where the lies are spun (and which is what the Neocons rely upon).

Missed opportunity

I don't think Rand would have lost any mainstream support if he had simply mentioned something like.

"Here we go again. We are basing foreign policy on something that is on youtube. I don't think youtube should be the source for which we make our foreign policy decisions."

As seen here, the administration can't produce any evidence other than youtube.

This would have quickly resonated due to the previous fiasco.

Agree, unfortunately, u-tube

Agree, unfortunately, u-tube is there and it does influence viewers.

I wouldn't follow Rand Paul into war...

any quicker than I would follow Bush or Obama.

I don't think that Rand has

I don't think that Rand has ever advocated going to war.

Sanctions are an act of war...

and not against the foreign state, either, but against the civilians.

Over half a million children died under the sanctions imposed on Iraq under the Clinton Administration. Think they cared?

Rand Paul said EUROPE not buying OIL from Russia was reasonable

He didn't even hint at a forcible embargo. Forcibly stopping medicine from going across a border when it is needed by children is one thing, but it is NOT what Rand Paul advocated.

So what the US did against Iraq may have been an act of war, what Rand Paul suggested EUROPE might consider was a trade reduction. Not anywhere near the same thing.

And what, specifically, are you suggesting Europe do? Not care that their citizens, primarily, were shot dead after flying over a known war zone?

There are a lot of things worth getting incensed about in this world, but Rand Paul's reasonable comments are not one of them.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

It depends on what the

It depends on what the sanctions are. Should we continue trade with someone who imposes a threat?

Besides, he's not calling for us to impose sanctions. He is telling Europe to deal with it. Because currently we foot the bill to protect everyone's interest. In other words he saying we should have little involvement. This hardly makes him a neocon.

Who comprises this "we" you speak of?

And - even with some nonzero probability that the Russian State was involved with the downing of the plane - were Russian businesses involved in it? Were Russian civilians involved?

As explicitly pointed out in the interview above, sanctions are more deadly than nuclear weapons - historically speaking.

I think this is Rand trying

I think this is Rand trying to cement the support of the Warhawks. This is why we shouldn't put much faith in politics, the worst tend to rise to the top. Compromise rules the day. Rand is still the best option for 2016, but he's not the man his father is.

just an another example how Rand is a neocon!

Question to the Randbots how many examples do you need before you wake up that he is not a friend to liberty? Or is he only playing politics?

This Libertarian will not support him

Stand With TRUE Libertarians
Fire Rand 2016!


If the father is a 99, the son is a 97, and people here will wail and moan "betrayal" if he crosses 95. Ya'll talk as if you have no conception of the political spectrum in America. Rand plays politics. He's the front runner in the Republican Party. Is he even half way through his first term in the Senate?

Do people here forget the turbulence RP caused throughout the debates in his two campaigns? It was a roller coaster. He was as controversial here as anywhere. The MTP interview with Tim Russert, where he talked about American slavery? The line he spoke of "facism coming wrapped in a cross"? His abortion speech in Iowa? The sky fell on this forum.

This is a snippet, a sound bite, viewed by .00001% of the country before he's even declared. He's taken no vote. If you listen closely he doesn't even declare a policy. People here are betrayed because he doesn't attack Greta's assumption that Russia was behind the attack.

Ya'll have NO CONCEPTION of how politics is played in America in 2014. There is no foul here. Ron Paul's son is the front runner for 2016, in a party that wouldn't even speak his father's name at the national convention in 2012. Cut the kid some slack.

Front runner in the GOP means

Front runner in the GOP means very little. The GOP is fast becoming a minority party -- they lose more and more members every year. What is the percentage of Republicans today? 20% maybe? Neocons are fast becoming extinct in todays political world.

It means he's

a skillful politician.

If neocons are losing influence, Rand Paul's rise means a new center for the party is possible. If he were to bring in "Rand Paul" Democrats, the libertarian wing of Republicans would have new voice and influence in an expanding party. "Conservatarian" was coined in silicon valley this week. This isn't Ron Paul. Rand is pro Israel. He's not utterly opposed to foreign interventions. He's also not CEO of a pharmaceutical, or billion dollar military contractor. He's not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations or the American Enterprise Institute. Love him or hate him, it's not horrible that he is considered a top pick for the party's nomination.

There is no frontrunner yet

There is no frontrunner yet because you are looking at a very crowded GOP primary field, with the "leader" probably getting no more than 15-18 percent support. That is not a "frontrunner".

Also what do you think is going to happen when Cruz, Rubio or any of the other Neo-Cons start bashing Rand over the head with the isolationist tag? He is either going to move closer to them and farther from us, making some of us not vote for him, or move closer to us and lose Neo-Con support. I believe he will choose the former and just hope we vote for him because we have delusions he is just like Ron.

I don't support compromise with the establishment. The establishment is an abomination of evil, and why our country is slipping to Third World status. The crisis at the border should be another example of why the Neo-Con foreign policy is an epic failure.

In the words of Barry Goldwater - extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

Chuck Todd among

others is calling him front runner this week. However premature, they like a horse race.

He's going to triangulate.

Don't really care what F.

Don't really care what F. Chuck Todd has to say. We even haven't had the first debate or commercials, and maybe 10 percent of Americans - and that's being generous - are even remotely focused on 2016.

As you said they like talking about the horse race because that's more time away from talking about issues of substance.